California’s Proposition 8 recognizing only marriage between a man and a woman had its morning before the highest court in the land today, with arguments centering around procreation and the label of marriage.

Protesters on both sides of the issue marched, prayed, danced and rallied in front of the Supreme Court. With Congress in recess, reporters badgered senators in their districts to get their current stances on same-sex marriage. The White House, still trumpeting its surprise ObamaCare victory here in June, tried to be quietly engaged, putting Valerie Jarrett in the courtroom but otherwise offering little prognostication.

And two lawyers who found themselves on opposing sides here more than a dozen years ago in Bush v. Gore joined forces today to argue that gay couples should have the right to marry in the Golden State.

“I think the most remarkable thing that happened in there was that there was no attempt to defend the ban on gay and lesbian marriage. There was no indication of any harm,” attorney David Boies, who represented Al Gore in the 2000 election fight, said after today’s oral arguments. “All that was said in there was that this important constitutional right ought to be decided at the state level as opposed to the federal government, but it is a federal Constitution that we have, and it is a federal Constitution that guarantees fundamental rights to every citizen in every state.”

Based upon the questions that the justices asked, “I have no idea” how the justices will rule, said Ted Olson, former solicitor general under President George W. Bush.

“The court has several ways to decide this case, from a very broad, sweeping conclusion with respect to the rights of our citizens in this country to a narrower ruling that would be limited basically to California. The court never gives you an idea how they’re going to decide it. They didn’t today,” Olson said. “They’ve obviously read the briefs. They care about the issues. And then we’ll see what the court decides.”

Andrew Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, said he expected to see “a very reasoned decision come out of this court.”

“Our position all along has been that the political process — that means state by state, states deciding for themselves — that that’s the forum where this debate belongs, and that this is not something that should be imposed by the judiciary — by the courts,” Pugno said. “And so a victory here for us means that this issue returns to the people and their legislatures and their elected representatives where the debate belongs.”

“We feel very confident about the standing question and are hopeful that the Supreme Court again will uphold the people’s right to defend and protect marriage in their state laws,” said Austin Nimocks, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom.

Prop. 8 passed in 2008 with 52 percent support. Since then, the measure has worked its way up the courts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found the proposition to be unconstitutional.

Inside the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy asked Charles Cooper, lead counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, if the same-sex marriage controversy can be treated “as a gender-based classification.”

“It’s a difficult question that I’ve been trying to wrestle with,” Kennedy added.

“I guess it is gender-based in the sense that marriage itself is a gendered institution, a gendered term, and so in the same way that fatherhood is gendered or motherhood is gendered, it’s gendered in that sense,” Cooper responded. “We agree that to the extent that the classification impacts, as it clearly does, same-sex couples, that that classification can be viewed as being one of sexual orientation.”

“Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked. “Is there any other rational decision-making that the government could make, denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?”

“Your honor, I cannot,” Cooper replied. “…We are saying the interest in marriage and the state’s interest and society’s interest in what we have framed as responsible procreation is vital, but at bottom, with respect to those interests, our submission is that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are simply not similarly situated.”

“In reading the briefs, it seems as though your principal argument is that same-sex and opposite-sex couples are not similarly situated because opposite-sex couples can procreate, same-sex couples cannot, and the state’s principal interest in marriage is in regulating procreation. Is that basically correct?” asked Justice Elena Kagan.

“That’s the essential thrust of our position, yes,” said Cooper.

“I don’t know why you don’t mention some concrete things,” Justice Antonin Scalia admonished the lawyer. “If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must — you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there’s considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not. …I don’t think we know the answer to that. Do you know the answer to that — whether it harms or helps the child?”

“No, your honor,” Cooper said.

Scalia noted “I take no position on whether it’s harmful or not, but it is certainly true that there’s no scientific answer to that question at this point in time.”

“And that, your honor, is the point I am trying to make. And it is the respondent’s responsibility to prove under rational basis review not only that — that there clearly will be no harm, but that it’s beyond debate that there will be no harm,” stated Cooper.

Kennedy said “there is an immediate legal injury or legal — what could be a legal injury” against 40,000 children in California living with same-sex parents who “want their parents to have full recognition and full status.”

Justices grilled Cooper on his contention that “redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes” with questions about how he viewed marriage for sterile or senior straight couples.

“Even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples — both parties to the couple are infertile,” Cooper said before laughter broke out.

“No, really, because if a couple — I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage,” Kagan said.

“Society’s interest in responsible procreation isn’t just with respect to the procreative capacities of the couple itself. The marital norm, which imposes the obligations of fidelity and monogamy, Your Honor, advances the interests in responsible procreation by making it more likely that neither party, including the fertile party –” Cooper said before Scalia quipped, “I suppose we could have a questionnaire at the marriage desk when people come in to get their marriage — you know, ‘Are you fertile or are you not fertile?’”

If SCOTUS declares Prop 8 unconstitutiuonal it is only a matter of time before NAMBLA files its first suit on sex with minors. To be followed closely by First Cousins in Love, the Nationa Sheep F%^&ers Association, and the Radical Mormons for Legalization of Polygamy.

The primary argument against same-sex marriage is that it undermines marriage as an institution for raising kids. I get this. However, if this is true, then why haven't the opponents of same-sex marriage been as diligent at trying to prevent the adoption of kids by same-sex couples? To oppose same-sex marriage while accepting adoption of children by same sex couples is logically self-contradictory and nullifies this entire argument against same-sex marriage.

Civil marriage ought to be considered like incorporation. Anyone can go into business. The constitution guarantees this. So also, marriage. However the benefits accorded a business through incorporating are not a right. So also the benefits of civil marriage are not a right.

The issue of power – and especially the great potential for a power struggle between the federal and the state governments – was extremely important to the America’s founders. They deeply distrusted government power, and their goal was to prevent the growth of the type of government that the British has exercised over the colonies.

Adoption of the Constitution of 1787 was opposed by a number of well-known patriots including Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and others. They passionately argued that the Constitution would eventually lead to a strong, centralized state power which would destroy the individual liberty of the People. Many in this movement were given the poorly-named tag “Anti-Federalists.”

The Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution of 1787 largely because of the intellectual influence and personal persistence of the Anti-Federalists and their allies.

It’s quite clear that the Tenth Amendment was written to emphasize the limited nature of the powers delegated to the federal government. In delegating just specific powers to the federal government, the states and the people, with some small exceptions, were free to continue exercising their sovereign powers.

When states and local communities take the lead on policy, the people are that much closer to the policymakers, and policymakers are that much more accountable to the people. Few Americans have spoken with their president; many have spoken with their mayor.

Adherence to the Tenth Amendment is the first step towards ensuring liberty in the United States. Liberty through decentralization.

Where in the Constitution does it even mention traditional marriage? Marriage, at its core, is a religious ceremony/institution, and therefore it is constitutional under the first amendment. Thus, a particular religion or church which agrees to marry gay or lesbian couples should be free to do so, under the constitution. By the same token, religions can forbid it among their members.

If SCOTUS declares Prop 8 unconstitutiuonal it is only a matter of time before NAMBLA files its first suit on sex with minors. To be followed closely by First Cousins in Love, the Nationa Sheep F%^&ers Association, and the Radical Mormons for Legalization of Polygamy.

You exaggerate, but then again, "If these people can, why not those?" If rights are confessed in painful gasps from the Fourteenth Amendment after being tortured and stretched on the rack, why not a bit more torture and see what other rights it will blurt out in pain?

“The court has several ways to decide this case, from a very broad, sweeping conclusion with respect to the rights of our citizens in this country to a narrower ruling that would be limited basically to California. The court never gives you an idea how they’re going to decide it. They didn’t today,” Olson said. “They’ve obviously read the briefs. They care about the issues. And then we’ll see what the court decides.”

====================================

If its a 5/4 ruling with the conservative judge majority this will be lobbed back to California for them to chew on - if the liberal side wins look for a sweeping decree - AKA legislating from the bench. My guess is it'll be a 7/2 or 6/3 ruling against Prop 8. Now lets get back to more serious stuff - please. Like how to kill ObummerCare before it kills all of us.

'...for the United States Supreme Court to come to an opposite conclusion would mean, I think, a real distortion of the Constitution...'

Since the founding document was ratified, we have seen over the generations an increasing propensity of the offspring to contort, disport, and distort the meaning of the Constitution until, it seems, that it is revered only in officious and nebulous words by callous and incautious public servants who have little if any respect for The Words. To Obama and his fellow travellers, The Words are just that and nothing more, just words.

He and his followers begrudge the little man when he violates the law, but to them the law is what they wish it to be.

Should the USSC rule that same-sex marriage is a right, they better mention separation of church and state in their ruling, "...respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...", or a lot of my friends and possibly I will go to prison.

If the SCOTUS decides that there can be a civil contract between two people, call it marriage if you want, that has all the benefits, privileges and liabilities that marriage has, that doesn't bother me much.If however, they insist that churches, mosques, synagogues and temples must perform their religious rites of marriage for people of the same gender as they have done for those of the opposite, that is over the line. Not even all heterosexual people can be married in religious rites. There are rules about such things, and those that follow them aren't going to suddenly change because of a court ruling.